tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 20, 2012 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
of great concern. i think that this this issue needs to be looked at as it is impacting animal welfare and the ability for us to have antibiotics that are available to treat humans. if we just use them so they are only treating animals, we are going to be in trouble. host: caroline smith dewaal of the center for science in the public interest, thank you for your time. we go to the house. the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 20, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable scott r. tipton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the
chair now recognizes members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker for the time. mr. speaker, in the last year we have witnessed dramatic changes in the middle east and north africa. there was vast media coverage and detailing the brew tality of oppressors like assad in syria. yet very little has been said about the escalation of violence against the -- cuba's internal opposition, a peaceful
group, who are being attacked by castro tyrants and their agents of terror as we can see in these photos and this poster right next to me, and they are operating just 90 miles from u.s. shores. but there is an opportunity to correct this wrong, to join forces and shed light on the systematic abuses against freedom loving cubans, and to call on pope benedict 16 as he prepares to visit the island gulag to publicly support the aspirations of the enslaved cuban people to exercise their god-given rights. the cuban dictatorship has ramped up its use of short-term deteppingses in order to intimidate and -- detentions in order to intimidate and silence the voices of these brave cubans. you see here the ladies in white, i'll explain who they are, they are standing up against tyranny and oppression. the castro regime has continued its assault on fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of religion and the freedom of
speech. the cuban people are reminded daily that no dissent is ever allowed as they live under constant threat and surveillance by the cuban state security forces. regime sympathizers and security forces have actually barred opposition leaders from leaving their homes and have violently attacked other peaceful pro-democracy protesters on the streets. just 48 hours ago, the castro regime detained about 70 members of the peaceful ladies in white movement, including 18 women who were arrested in havana on their way to mass. an important leader in ladies in white was detained during the crackdown. the ladies in white as we can see here, they are peaceful group, they are founded by wives, mothers, and daughters of political prisoners who have suffered in castro's gulag. these ladies are advocates of freedom and by silently marching as they do through the
streets, they convey a powerful message of peace and a voice for all the oppressed. the ladies in white have expressed their interest in meeting with the pope during his visit next week, but have not been able to confirm that meeting. a few days ago 13 members of cuban's opposition stage add peaceful sit-in at a catholic church in havana to call attention to their request for pope benedict xvi to meet with pro-democracy advocates during his visit to the island. reports indicate that castro agents forcibly removed these human rights defenders from the church, detained them, and subjected them to severe interrogation. it is my hope, mr. speaker, that pope benedict will meet with these brave dissidents, as you can see in these new poster as they were dragged through the streets, and shine a light on the struggles of the cuban people who are living under the rule of the oppressive astro brothers. i urge the -- castro brothers.
i you urge the catholic church to express its support and solidarity with the internal peaceful opposition and hear the voices of the dissidents who are yearning for freedom. as you can see here, they are being attacked. they are dragged through the streets in cuba. the passionate strug many of the internal opposition will not be deterred by the abuses occurring daily at the hands of the castro regime. these recent crackdowns by the redeem illustrates its fear, paranoia, concern that the cuban people are no longer afraid of the regime and are demanding a democratic change on the island. the citizens of cuba are denied basic human rights by the castro regime, including the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and due process of law. these fundamental freedoms should not be reserved for the citizens of some countries while denied to those in other nations. i urge free nations, responsible nations to condemn
the recent actions by the castro brothers as shown here to speak out against the atrocities that are committed daily in cuba and to reaffirm unconditional support for the cuban people who seek to break free from the shackles of the castro tyranny. i thank the speaker for the time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise today to ask the american people to consider the price of the afghan war. not only its unsustainable financial toll but also the psychological costs to those in the frontlines as well as those here at home. because this war fought on the ground by a tiny percentage of americans and largely ignored by the greater majority of us,
nevertheless has had powerful effects on each one of us. in the past three months there have been several high profile incidents in afghanistan that have forced us to reflect on the mid -- mental state of the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in afghanistan. in january, four soldiers in combat gear urinated on three bloodied corpses. in february, american soldiers burned copies of the koran which triggered six days of riots across afghanistan. and this month a soldier went on a murderous rampage in kandahar province, killing 16 afghans and nine children. these events have shocked us, but they remain remote to most of us. i want to talk today about what this has done, what this war has done to our national psyche. that is our sense of connectedness to one another and our sense of mutual obligation to this contry. the war in afghanistan has been fought primarily by a small
group from the army and marine corps who serve multiple tours because we do not have adequate replacements for them. this has allowed most of us to disengage ourselves from the terror and suffering and despair endured by those who are sent to war. a retired general wrote in the "washington post" last week, we are fighting too many wars with two >> soldiers. he's right. more than 100,000 of our soldiers have been deployed. three or more times since 9/11. many of them are overused, exhausted, demoralized, and unprepared to come home to a country that has little personal investment in the war and does not fully understand its objectives. is it fair or reasonable to send these courageous citizens to war four, five, and six times? i was a doctor who treated combat soldiers returning from vietnam, and i know that no one escapes multiple tours of combat duty without trauma. there are almost 100,000 new cases of ptsd among our service
members since 9/11. the military suicide rate in some months has been higher than the casualty rate. we are wrong to subject such a small group, fewer than one half of one percent of all americans torques such a disproportion nalt share of the consequences of war. i felt this way in 2007 when i supported fell veteran charlie rangel's bill declaring an obligation of every american citizen between ages 18 and 42 to perform two-year period of national service, either as a member of the national forces or in civilian capacity that promotes national defense in times of war. several weeks ago my constituent, sergeant william stacey, became the 399th resident from washington state to be killed since the war on terror began following 9/11. in his letter which soldiers write in case they die, sergeant stacey wrote, my death did not change the world.
but there is a greater meaning to it. there will be a child who will live because men left the security they enjoyed in their home country to come to his. if more americans sacrifice their time and energy toward our country's ideals, perhaps, sergeant stacey's dream of a more peaceful afghanistan could become a reality. as the overwhelming majority of the nation stands by while 23-year-olds die in a distant war zone, our national psyche has been frayed and our shared identity is diminished. we have become immune, immune to the traumas of war and we have lost our sense of common purpose. in the vietnam war, when everybody served, you had no immunity because everybody knew somebody, but now it's not that way. we must face the true cost of
war on not only our soldiers but on ourselves and our ideals. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. when the coal-fired power plant in my district in southwestern pennsylvania, my community didn't just lose the 50 remaining jobs, it also lost a vital component to economic growth, affordable energy. we should be cleaning up not shutting down these power plants, but new regulations aimed scarely at coal, oil, and natural gas are making it harder for families to get by. for manufacturers to prosper, and making it more fifth for our country to become energy independent. the arama plant is one of 57 nationwide slated to close because of a multitude of costly and unworkable e.p.a.
rules set to take effect over the next five years. already utilities are preparing to retire almost 10% of coal power in the country, that's 25 megawatts of energy that supports 18.8 million homes. that lost capacity which is five times greater than what the e.p.a. predicted it would be is why the north american electricity reliability corporation is warning of blackout and service disruptions. the e.p.a.'s new coal regulations will cost the economy $184 billion and 1.4 million jobs in mining, transportation, manufacturing, and power generation. of course the expense will be passed along to consumers. families in my state could see about $400 more a year in their electric bill. and it begs the question, is the president trying to make good on his promise to bankrupt utilities that use coal? these new costs would come at a time when higher oil prices already mean families are paying $2,400 a year for
gasoline than they were three years ago. as gasoline prices approach $5 a gallon, the average family will pay over $3,000 more a year. that's a couple months worth of groceries or college loans or payments on a new car. unfortunately instead of increasing oil supplies to bring down prices, domestic oil production on federal lands has fallen 13% in the last year. the president said we have only 2% of the world's proven reserves conveniently overlooking the recoverable oil under lock and key in the gulf and shale oil states. we have more oil reserves, 800 billion barrels, than saudi arabia. and by the way, that means for a family that makes less than $10,000 a year, they'll be spending 81% of their income on energy. for a family that makes between $10,000 and $30,000 a year, they'll be spending 24% of their income on energy. and for every dollar of gasoline, 76 cents is tied up in crude oil. to bring down the price of gas, we don't need higher taxes on oil companies or speculators,
when we need to do is send signals to the world the united states is serious about using north american energy. we can start with building the keystone pipeline. many of my colleagues argue that we can count on natural gas to replace demand for coal and oil. while 2k340s its are being unlocked with true fracturing technologies, natural gas is also threatened with costly overregulation. eight federal agencies are there to stop it. the e.p.a., department of intenor, energy, transportation, agriculture, center for disease control, the army corps of engineers, and security and exchanges commission are working on new regulatory burdens. one national energy organization predicts an e.p.a. natural gas regulation for well sites specifically written to combat quote, global warming, unquote, will cut shale gas drilling by 31% to 52%. that means higher energy bills to heat our homes. with our know how and resources in coal and natural gas and nuclear, americans can still become an energy independent nation. that's why i introduced an
all-of-the-above energy plan that wouldn't raise taxes, borrow for china, or buy from opec. the infrastructure jobs and energy independence act, h.r. 1861, expands safe offshore oil and gas exploration, creates over a million new jobs annually, and launches, $8 trillion in economic output. it dedicates a portion of its up to $3.7 trillion in new federal and oil gas revenues for investments in rebuilding our aging infrastructure, power generation, grid modernization, and helps put us on a path to energy independence. and rather than shutting down coal fired power plants, my bill invests in the kind of cutting-edge technology being developed at the national energy technology laboratory to clean up coal. we can continue to build the wealth of opec countries, use our country to fund unfriendly policies, or build jobs here at home with energy independence. we can let opec pick the winners and losers or make the us f u u.s.a. the winners again. i choose the u.s.a. we have the energy resources to
unleash prosperity, but first and only if the federal government gets out of the way. the federal government should be a partner in prosperity not building bureaucracies and barriers to stop our energy independence and hurt the american family. . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, everyone in washington is trying to arrive at the same destination. we seek to end our dependence on foreign oil, a dependence that endangers our environment, hurts our economy and weakens our national security. and importantly, there is a right way to get there. that includes cracking down on oil speculators, ending big oil handouts, investing in public transportation and green energy and increasing corporate average fuel economy standards. there's also a wrong way.
ransacking our coastlines for oil. but you don't have to take my word for it. you can take a page from the history books on this one. for eight years under the previous administration the number of oil leases on public lands almost tripled. it didn't help gas prices, which doubled in 2008 and it didn't make us energy independent. why not? the simple fact is the u.s. has less than 3% of the world's oil reserves. no matter how much we drill in the u.s., that number is not expected to change. we will not have enough oil to satisfy domestic demands for energy. after all we currently use 25% of the world's oil. and we will never have enough to sufficiently impact prices on the world market. the u.s. energy information administration has said as much, noting that increases in u.s. domestic production could be neutralized by a corresponding decrease in
production among international oil producers, namely opec. what's really to blame for our high gas prices? ken said the world price is the world price. even if we are producing 100% of our oil, we would probably couldn't produce enough to affect the world price of oil. well then, who's really to blame for high gas prices? is this -- is it this administration? michael cain, former chief economist for the oil industries american petroleum institute says otherwise. quote, it's not credible to blame the obama administration's drilling policies for today's high prices. what's really to blame for high gas prices is excessive speculation by entities that have no consumption interest in the underlying commodities and that profit by doing nothing
more than forecasting price trends. our primary focus should be on countering the growing impact of oil speculation rather than simply promoting the oil industry's priorities of increasing domestic drilling. experts, including oil industry officials and investment firms, estimate that excessive oil speculation could be inflating prices by up to 30%. but increasing domestic drilling would impact prices by only about 1%. and that would happen only after a decade or more. so then where do we go from here? we learn from those wh are reaping the economic -- we learn from those who are reaping the economic development within a booming green industry. countries like india and china. right now in this chamber we neglect to consider a host of incentives for international and domestic investment in renewable energy production. just last week a measure failed to pass the senate that would have extended production, tax
credits for wind, solar and the like. at a time when we're rolling back, governments in southeast asia are refining targets for renewable energy expansion, extending subsidies and dangling tax breaks. this does not a domestic competitive advantage make and in fact we're better than that. gas prices are still below the peak in 2008 and crude oil is at $107 a barrel today compared to $145 a barrel back then. but listening to the news, you have a hard time believing these cold hard facts. even if we were to drill a hole everywhere in the country we know to have oil and drain out every drop of reserves we'd just have enough to last us 1,094 days, just three years. that trickle won't ease gas prices. raising average fuel efficiency
for cars to 60 miles per gallon by 2025 would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.8 million barrels per day by 2030. a combined investment in more efficient cars and trucks, cleaner fuels and more transportation options for americans could cut our oil imports in half by 2030. the administration is currently developing the next phase of standards covering phoenix sold lieu the model year -- covering model years 2025. we can and must do better. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to acknowledge the work that tail lohr townsend, the reigning mississippi
college is doing to combating human trafficking. tailor is compassionity about this. tyler townsend is lending her support for the blue heart campaign to bring awareness to human trafficking and the exploitation of people, especially children and teenagers. in addition to her work building awareness worldwide with the blue heart campaign, tailer townsend has been offering her -- tailor townsend has two bills pending before the mississippi legislature and is involved in educational efforts, bringing awareness to mississippiians. mr. speaker, young people, like taylor townsend, who help volunteer their time to make this world beater place, should be applauded. they should give us great hope for the future and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the
gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand here in the same spot where i was about two years ago , march 23, 2010, to celebrate the passage of one of the most important acts that this body has ever passed, the affordable care act. on march 23, we will celebrate the two-year anniversary of that landmark decision. of course, next week the supreme court will hear arguments on whether the individual mandate is permissible or not, and let us hope that the supreme court will act according to the law. the affordable care act will change the landscape of our nation's health care delivery system for the better. i hosted a telephone town hall last night with my constituents on the affordable care act and was joined by the deputy secretary of the health and human services to answer questions from folks in my district about how it will affect them. we listened to comments and stories about people who have been in the doughnut hole,
seniors, that cost them a lot of money and we told them about the fact that some of them knew that once they go in the doughnut hole, after they spend about $2,500 and $2,700 and $5,000 that you impin that hole, that the money will be paid for with a 50% discount because of the affordable care act. that secretaries teamly important for citizens and others with high drug bill prices. children will be able to stay on their parent's ininsurance if they truce to up -- insurance if they choose to up to the age of 26 and that's important for children. and doctors will be able to see seniors for preventive care without cost. it will happen for everybody in 2014 when the law goes into effect for law. madam grams, clon --
colonoscopies. and they won't have lifetime limits on how much people can use their insurance in case of illness. and there will be a consumer-friendly exchange where you can shop for prices for insurance and compare insurance policies to get what's best for you. you can't arbitrarily be dropped from coverage by your insurance company simply because you get sick, and pre-existing conditions will not be the basis to deny somebody insurance, already today for children up to the age of 19, pre-existing conditions cannot stop you from getting insurance. i had polio when i was a child. i would not like to think any child that gets illness like that today to be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. that's because the affordable care act will not occur in the future in this country. insurance companies have taken people off of insurance because they've used too much in a year or too much in a lifetime, and that's going to stop. the idea of getting preventive
care, which medicare provides now and all will have in the future, will lead to lower health care costs, because if you catch illnesses early it's much more cost efficient to treat them. and lives will be saved as well. and insurance companies will require to spend at least 80% of their moneys on treating patients, not on executive pay, 'tising, administrative costs -- advertising, administrative costs. and if they go over that the consumer will get a rebate. insurance companies must now publish justification for any premium increases they are seeking more than 10% on the internet and outside experts will evaluate whether those increases are justified. the consumer will be protected. the doughnut hole ending, which i talked about earlier, has helped 3.6 million seniors receive discounts of $2.1 billion. each senior saving an average of $604.
the preventative care services i mentioned under medicare, 32.5 million seniors have already received one or more of those preventive services and youngsters received them as well because they get preventive care and their vaccinations without having a co-pay, which might stop their parent from taking them to the doctor to get those vaccinations which can prevent illnesses later. seniors are now receiving free annual wellness visits under medicare. 2.3 million seniors on traditional medicare have already taken advantage of the new annual wellness visit. and young adults stay on their insurance, as i mentioned, 2.5 million additional young people gained insurance over the last year. paul wrote in yesterday's "new york times," that what is called by the republican party obamacare, which really if you think about it is a good thing,
obama cares, but it's not intended to be by them is really obama-romney care because the plan we had is what mitt romney did in massachusetts to make sure the burden was shared in an appropriate way. thank you, mitt romney. thank you, president obama. thank you, united states congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the lady from florida, ms. wilson, for five minutes. ms. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. for the time. mr. speaker, i am tired of burying young black boys. i am tired of watching them suffer at the ends of those who fear them and despise them. i'm tired of comforting mothers, fathers, grandparents,
sisters and brothers after such unnecessary heinous crimes of violence. in florida, almost three years ago, as i served in the florida senate, a young black boy, martin anderson, was beaten to death at a florida boot camp. it was all on the state of florida corrections video. he was beaten and tortured until his lifeless body couldn't take any more, and then martin anderson was dead at the hands of several boot camp guards. a young boy who wanted to be somebody, a young boy who was trying to turn his life around. after they beat him to death on international tv as the world watched, over and over again, not one guard was sent to prison. not one was even reprimanded.
in fact, after we closed down every boot camp in florida, many of the accused received promotions. well, guess what? in florida we have another martin. treyvaughn martin. she was shot to death by renegade neighborhood policeman watchman. he lived in miami, florida, in district 17, my congressional 17. treyvaughn, a 140-pound black boy, 17 years old, was just trying to live and reach 18. in spite of that, the accused killer, george zimmerman, has not been charged, and is using the time of self--- title of self-defense. the audiotapes tell it all. it tells the story of the last
moment of his life. just as the videotapes told so vividly, the story of martin lee anderson's last moments, treyvaughn was running for his life. he was screaming for help, fighting for his life, and then he was murdered, shot dead. today, i applaud the florida department of law enforcement, the amphibious and the federal department of -- the f.b.i. and the federal department of justice. i encourage the citizens of florida and the citizens around the world to continue to fight for justice for treyvaughn martin, justice must be served. no more racial profiling. i'm tired of fighting when the evidence is so clear, so transparent. 20 years ago while serving as a school board member, i founded the 5,000 excellence project, an honored foundation that
specifically addresses the trials and tribulations of young black boys and sends them to college. . it impacts almost 20,000 young men throughout florida. in spite of that, we still have to march and demonstrate and write letters and protest and fight and have prayer vigils and sit-ins just to be heard. no more. no more, florida. no more, american. no more hiding your criminal racial profiling by using self-defense to get away with murder. stand up for treyvaughn martin, stand up for justice. stand up for our children. i'm tired, tired, tired of burying young black boys. thank you.
i turn back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five mnts. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the affordable care act is styled such for a reason. let us look back to 2009 at the time we embarked upon passing the affordable care act. at that time in 2009, we were spending $2.5 trillion per year on health care. $2.5 trillion. that's a lot of money. it's very difficult to understand $2.5 trillion. well, $2.5 trillion is $79,000 per second. that's what we were spending on health care. $79,000 per second. by the way these numbers are so
huge that sometimes i do confuse them myself. i'll be quite candid with you. but $79,000 per second. we were spending 17.6% of g.d.p. on health care. it was projected by 2018 we will be spending $4.4 trillion per year on health care. that would be $139,000 per second. as i said, big numbers. hard to always get them correct because they are so huge and they can be confusing. $139,000 per second. we had 45,000 persons per year dying because they didn't have proper health care. we had 21 million people who were working full-time and did not have insurance, 21 million people. in my state of texas, six
million people were uninsured. 20% of the state's children were uninsured. in howard county in my state of texas, 1.1 million people were uninsured. it was a time for this congress to act. and act we did. by passing the affordable care act, we have reduced the cost of health care over the long term. it doesn't happen immediately. because the rising costs as i have explained to you was exponentially, it was huge. it was almost unimaginable. so to bring it down doesn't mean that it comes down instantly but over the next 20 years will save $1 trillion. and here's what we have done. aside from lowering the costs, which is important, we also impact lives. preventive care is there. we also do away with pre-existing conditions. for those who do not know, pregnancy is a pre-existing
condition. we also make sure that women are not discriminated against. women won't be charged more simply because they are females, because they are women. we equalize health care as it relates to the genders. we close the doughnut hole as it relates to senior citizens. i might also add that in 2009 we were spending about $100 billion a year on uninsured persons. much of that in emergency rooms where persons had to go to the emergency room to get the care that at the did not have by virtue of not having insurance, so they were getting their primary care in emergency rooms. they were also getting their pharmaceuticals through emergency rooms. it was a time to act and act we did. we passed the affordable care act. and i will close with this. we live in the richest country in the world. one out of every 100 persons is a millionaire. in this country if you are an enemy combative and we should
capture you and wound you in the process, we will give you aid and comfort. in this country if you are a bank robber and you are robbing the bank and on the way out we should harm you, when we capture you we will give you aid and comfort. in this country if you are on death row scheduled to meet your maker next week and you get sick this week, we give you aid and comfort this week and we send you to meet your maker next week. in this country if we can give aid and comfort to the enemy combatant, if we can give aid and comfort to the criminal to robs the bank, if we can give aid and comfort to the person on death row, surely we can give aid and comfort to hardworking americans who do not earn enough to afford insurance. the affordable care act does this. it does not require people who cannot afford insurance to buy it, but it does say every person who can should buy insurance. the affordable care act is
making a difference in the lives of people. children can stay on their parents' 308cies -- policies until they are 26 years of age. this is a good piece of legislation. i still -- i supported it then and i still support it now. the affordable care act is affordable and that is why we passed it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, for five minutes. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support legislation that i along with congressman george miller of california and ruben hinojosa of stks are introducing later today to re-authorize the work force investment act. the work force investment act or w.i.a. is the primary federal law of governing how employment and training services are provided to adults, youth, and dislocated workers. it was enacted in 1998 when unemployment was below 5%.
and before many of today's high growth industries existed. it is long past time for w.i.a. to be modernize n $and retooled to address our country's current challenges. the bill i'm introducing today cost that. this bill increases access to training and improves delivery of employment services. it strengthens the ability standards to better evidence program effectiveness and provide assurance that is our taxpayer dollars are being well spent. my bill ensures that the kind of innovative work being done by the work force investment board in my district and elsewhere across the country can be replicated and taken to scale. and it expands the role of community colleges in job training. this is the kind of commonsense legislation on which this congress should be acting. we need to make sure we provide the training and education that americans have the skills to fulfill the jobs of today and tomorrow. too many businesses have job vacancies because they can't find qualified candidates.
so working together we can help workers and those looking to hire them and this should not be a partisan issue. we need to find those qualified candidates and put them to work. modernizing and strengthening w.i.a. will help those workers and employers and ensure that our country can remain competitive in this global economy. i urge my colleagues' support for it and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, -- the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker for his curtcy. -- for his courtesy. mr. speaker, thank you very much for your courtesy. i rise this morning on a number of issues that i think are enormously important and i'm delighted to join initially my colleague from texas to again
emphasize and truthfully tell the story about the affordable care act that is now two years old. but as the founder and the co-chair of the congressional children's caucus, and because our children are our present and our tomorrows, i think it is important to ask the question, do we want healthy children? and should health care be a question of wealth and status? or should it be open to all of our beautiful and precious children and youth? the affordable care act allows our young college students to remain on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26. the affordable care act allows a baby that is -- has proclivity to asthma as a pre-existing condition to be able to be covered by insurance. it provides an opportunity for
expensive research and some of the unsolved childhood diseases such as pediatric cancer. and of course it provides a greater access to health care by expanding what we call community health clinics, something i have been a proponent off since coming to congress and throughout the bush administration, when i asked president bush directly about the number of community health clinics, not only in the nation but in my state of texas where we have the highest number of uninsured persons. so i don't know why our republican presidential candidates and many think that the rising pathway to victory is condemn an opportunity for our children. i find that curious at best and i would applaud and celebrate president obama and the -- his administration, the secretary of health and human services, secretary sebelius, and all of those contributing to the
implementing of this legislation. i can tell you where in texas today as i stand women are being denied access to health care. thank god for the affordable care act for its constitutional or its federal premise of providing access to health care for all americans. at least we have something that we can question the denial of access to health care to women in the state of texas. i intercaded -- indicated that i chair the congressional children caucus, so i rise today to applaud the justice department decision to investigate the death, the murder, of mr. martin in sanford, florida. youngster, the child of two loving parents, minding his own business, wearing the attire of youthful people, hoodies, sneakers, i understood or understand that he had his earphones in his ear, and maybe bopping along to a little
music. i support neighborhood watch. i come from local government. neighbors should watch out for each other, but not a neighborhood vigilante. if the 9/11 call said to that individual, mr. zimmerman, don't follow him then sit in our car and sit quiet, the police are on the way. every one of us as a parent, i have a son, this is not an issue that should strike us as color. it should be anyone that has a teenager bopping along with a hoody on or sneakers and earphones in his ear. just going to get candy. to be able to sit in front of the all-star game. he winds up with a gunshot to the chest that kills him dead in his tracks. thank you, justice department, that recognizes that the harsh laws in the state of texas that says that you don't have to stand -- you can stand your ground and defend yourself, this man should have retreated. he should have never been out there after that boy. that boy was not found coming out of a window, going through
a door, he was on a sidewalk. and it is an outrage. thank you to president obama's justice department for recognizes that his civil rights are now in question of having been violated. and the federal law preempts florida's law which is the harshest law in this nation. every parent should think at least if their child is just being a child, just being a teenager, a youngster that likes to babysit and play football, that he still has life ahead of him. i also want to say that i support moving the r status from the bullying bill. i held a major hearing in my district bullying is a epidemic and i have introduced major legislation that i en-- i am encouraging the judiciary committee to pass this legislation dealing with bullying. it is a epidemic. we can re-authorize the block grant to give moneys for best
practices to help parents torques help schools, to help children learn about bullying. i believe that our children, i want this congress to believe in our children and nation to believe in our children. mr. speaker, i thank you for yielding to me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 1 we will show that to
general john allen is testifying before the armed services committee. the u.s. faces a long list of issues in afghanistan, including the killing of 16 civilians allegedly by an american soldier. it is tuesday, and another primary is being held in illinois we will have live coverage of the result, speeches, your calls and reaction. all of that getting underway on the c-span networks. ahead of paul ryan's released a day of the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, ken conrad said that the spending limits agreed to last summer is intended to serve as the budget for fiscal year 2013. here is senator conrad. >> is everybody ready? why don't we begin? i am here to discuss the resolution that i will file in
the senate later today. this resolution sets the spending limits forced the school year 2013 at the levels of agreed to by the congress and the president last year and set out in last summer's budget control act. it allows the appropriations committees to proceed with their work for next year and it ensures the senate will have the tools to enforce those spending limits that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis. i want to emphasize that we do have a budget. it is the law of the land. it was passed last year. it is in place. those who say we do not have a budget have either failed to pay attention to what they voted on the or are deliberately trying to mislead the public. the budget control act was passed by the house of representatives.
it was passed by the united states senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote and was signed into law by the president. it is now the law of the land and establishes the key components of the budget for here is the language. it is very clear the budget control act is intended to serve for the budget for the 12 and 2013. it states, "for the purpose of enforcing the congressional budget act of 1974 through april 15, 2012, the allocations, aggregates, and levels set shall apply to the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012."
that same language is repeated for 2013. in many ways, the budget control act was even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. number one, it has the force of law. on like a budget resolution that never goes to the president. all of you know a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. the budget control act is a law. number two, it sets caps for 10 years instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. it provided enforcement mechanisms including two years of the main resolutions which allow budget points of order to be enforced. fourth, it created a reconciliation dax like super committee process to address title men's and tax reform.
it back that process up with a $1.20 trillion sequester. i think we can put to rest the claims that there is no budget in place or we have not enacted a budget. a budget was enacted for last year and this year. last week, we received cbo's updated budget estimates which allowed me to complete work on the deeming resolution for 2013. the filing of this resolution was required under the budget control act. i filed a similar resolution for 2012 back in september. the budget control act is crystal clear, that the spending limits in the resolution should be set at levels agreed to in the budget control act. again, here is the language taken directly from the law.
"not later than april 15, 2012, the chairman shall file for the committee on appropriations committee allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with discretionary spending limits set forth in this act." if it does not say at a level below the limits set forth in this act. it says at a level consistent with the limits set forth in the act. limitsemember what these main. under the budget control act, spending caps that are put in place in the law, discretionary spending is cut by $900 billion below the bass line over the next 10 years. that is not including the sequester cuts. that is just the result of the
budget control act spending limits. our house republican friends now seem to be walking away from these levels even though they agreed to them seven months ago. let's look at what they themselves said last summer. here is what the house budget committee chairman said on the house floor august 1, last year. --
>> so, last summer, our republican house colleagues were pleased to get 66% of what they wanted. on that basis, they made an agreement. the shock on its. and they passed it as law. now they are threatening to walk away from their agreement. its seems as though our house republican colleagues are on their own. because at least so far, the senate republican leadership has agreed we should keep to the spending limits that we agreed on last year. this is what senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said last month on the senate floor. "we already have that number. there is no good reason for this institution not to move forward
with a process that avoids what we have done so frequently under both parties for years and years." the senate republican leader concluded, "i hope we can join together and do the basic work of government this year and do it in a timely fashion. i hope our house republican colleagues are listening." it is very clear we have a budget for this year and for next. that budget is in the law. rim in pursuance of that law filing the deeming resolution in the senate today that provides the numbers that the appropriators need to proceed with their work for the year. bca also sets the revenue levels and the mandatory spending levels for the year. again, i hope our house
republican friends are listening. we still must come together on a longer-term plan to deal with the long term debt threat. about the short-term budget is in place. it is the law. it was included in the budget control act that they agreed to last summer. it provided for about $900 billion in discretionary spending cuts over the 10 years of that agreement. so the senate is proceeding with its business. i will be filing the deeming resolution for 2013 today and we will be moving forward with appropriations bills at all levels that everyone agreed to last year. house republicans i hope would do the same. if they fail to do so, they will threaten to shut down the government's and imperil the
economic recovery. i am happy to answer questions that people might have. >> what the republicans say it is you have this massive sequester coming along. what they are doing is they are cutting $19 billion and they are also going to have a reconciliation process that would take care of some of the other cuts. you do not have any plan to deal with the sequester, or if you do, what is it? >> the first responsibility i have under the budget control act which is the law is to file the deeming resolution that sets the budget for this next year. i am doing that today. might be co-counsel tells me that meets the requirement and
the responsibility for the budget committee to file a budget for this year by april 1. a longer-term plan, as i indicated, is what remains to be done. that has to be done in some bipartisan way. so i am hopeful that as we go through this year, we will find a way to do that. i will provide an outline of what i think makes sense as a long-term plan. the april 1 deadline has now been met. yeah? >> how do you deal with things -- the lockheed martin ceo spoke last week about the impact, that their suppliers might go belly up. how do you deal with that and
when do you propose dealing with the larger deficit issue? >> what is provided for in the budget control act which everyone agreed to last year set the defense cannot non-defense firewall for this coming fiscal year. that is been decided. the question is sequestration which takes effect at the end of this year. that is what has to be addressed in some longer-term plan. i will propose a longer term plan at some point in the future. we are talking to colleagues about that now. the first requirement that i had was to meet that april 1 deadline set out in the budget control act law, and i do that today. >> the conventional wisdom is that something would happen in the lame-duck but there is not that much time to get that done. >> that is why my own belief is
-- we are in a very unusual situation and people are trapped by what they know from the past. in the past, we have dealt with budget resolutions. that is not what congress and the president did last year. in we passed the budget control act that provided the responsibility to lay out the numbers before the appropriators by april 15. i have done that today. the appropriators can go forward with their work for this year. as i indicated in my statement, what still needs to be done is a logger-term plan. but we are no longer tied to the april 1 deadline. that deadline has been met by what we filed here today. what we need is a longer term plan. that is a matter of judgment --
where is it most likely that the two sides can come together? i have had many my colleagues say that it is most likely after the election. that may be. i don't know the answer to that. what i do know is that we have met the requirements for a budget for this year. what is still needed is a longer-term plan. when i make a judgment that we are in the best position to move forward on that, we will go to mark up. yeah? >> the house republicans are going to try to lower the number to have you seen anything since -- >> not that i know of. >> senator mcconnell -- >> i really don't know what the key element is. what i do know is that the budget control act was flawed. what i do know is that i was given responsibility to file a
budget by april 15, and i have done that. the operators can now go to work. they are now limited, now restricted. that is the reason we have in the underlying budget control act the requirement that i filed by april 1, so that the appropriators to get started. the budget control act provided the budget for this year, this coming fiscal year, and for the current year we are in it. i have discharge that responsibility, the appropriators have met with the chairman of the appropriations committee. his legal counsel has advised him that this is what is required under the law. he has all the authority he needs to proceed with the appropriations process for this year. and again, let me emphasize, while we have now met the
responsibility for budget for not only this year, which was done last year in september -- i did it did deeming resolution than -- what i am doing today is discharging the responsibility for the coming fiscal year -- what we still need to do is agree on a longer-term plan that deals without deficit and debt. that is no longer tied to april 1, according to our legal counsel. you know, we are going to have to make a collective judgment. when is it we have the best chance of actually reaching an agreement? many of my colleagues have said they don't believe that will happen until after the election. my own belief is that we cannot wait to tell them to be working on a plan. for months i have been working on a plan. i have got meetings with my colleagues, i been working with the group of eight on a
bipartisan plan. it is my hope that through these joint efforts, we will at some time this year, maybe we will have to wait until after the election, that we will be able to have the comprehensive plan agreed to that deals with our long-term challenges. thank you. we have got a statement here that lays out what we're doing in the deeming resolution, the numbers that are assigned to each of the committee's, and las out the savings brought nearly $900 billion over 10 ers. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> senator kent conrad, for about an hour ago, reacting to the release of the 2013 budget proposal by house budget committee chairman paul ryan.
here is his news conference from just about half an hour ago. >> morning, everybody. it is the good day. i am proud to be here with my fellow colleagues on the house budget committee. they have worked very hard, we have together, to produce this document we are all holding in our hands, "the path to prosperity." senator jeff sessions is here with us, the ranking member of the senate budget committee who brought eight prosecutorial zeal to a budget that has gotten out of control. this year we are offering again
our path to prosperity. this year we are going to build on the important work we did last year. we will take several new and improved strides. first, we propose that we repeale the president's disastrous health care law, and stop its mandate from trampling on our liberties, stop its spending from threatening our fiscal house, and stop this board of bureaucrats from threatening medicare. instead, we propose to save and strengthen medicare by taking power away from government bureaucrats. we preserve the medicare guarantees for today's seniors so they can count on the benefits they have organized their retirement around, and we preserve that guarantee going into the feature for tomorrow's seniors by empowering them with a choice, including a fee-for- service traditional option within the premium support system. we believe competition and choice should be the way forward versus price controls that lead to rationing. on the budget, we also propose
to strengthen medicaid by empowering our states, by returning money to them so they can design programs unique to their states that taylor this program to meet the needs of their populations. we also reformed welfare. the 1996 welfare reform was very successful in getting towards an upward mobile society, getting people off dependency and on to lives of self-sufficiency. unfortunately, that was the only program among the means tested entitlement programs that was performed. we are proposing similar reforms to this date so we can make sure we are not creating a culture of dependency in america but a culture of self- sufficiency, getting people back on their feet in lives of all board mobility. we also propose as one of our hallmark issues to get economic growth and job creation to reform the tax system. specifically, we include a tax reform proposal provided by all of the members of the ways and means committee. we propose to collapse the six
different tax brackets into two -- a 10% bracket and 25% bracket for individuals, 25% bracket for corporations, at the international average, and going to a territorial system. all those details you can get on the website that shows the letter we have been given by the ways and means committee. finally, i want to say something about this next year. the sequester is coming. a lot of people in washington would like to simply ignore this, a lot of people in a washington think we can spend as we're going and ignore the fact that on january 2, the sequester kicks in. we don't think we should ignore this. what we're doing this year is something we've not done for six years. we are going to propose to go through a reconciliation process. you might be thinking, and they used the cancellation a couple of years ago. they distorted the reconciliation process to jam through a health care entitlement. we will bring reconciliation back to what it was meant to do,
to bring spending and deficits under control. we are assigning six authorizing committees to bring the spending cuts to the budget committee and their report to the floor in so we can show how we would replace next year's request for. we think that is extremely important, to show the country exactly how we would prepare for these eventualities. it is also critical to reiterate the challenges facing our country. i want to bring everybody's attention to these charts. the thing actually works. we have had deficits in the past. we have had brief moments of surpluses, but we have had deficits. look at where the country is headed. look at where the president and his budget is taking the country. the president's budget is taking us on a path of debt crisis, decline, and these are the deficits in store for america if we stay with the status quo. here is what pat -- to pat what
" -- what "the path to prosperity" proposes. if we start growing the economy faster, which we think our policies will result in, the budget will balance even faster than i.t. has shown right here. let's talk about spending. the president keeps the size of government at historic highs now and well into the future. he never brings spending back down to where it historically has been. by 2015, we get spending down to 20% of the economy, which is our historic average, and then below that after that. all in all, what we're proposing is to cut $5.20 trillion in spending from the president's budget. now, here is where it all matters to you. what about the national debt?
we now in front of us is one of the most predictable crises we have ever had in this country's history, a mountain of debt that is coming. this is what the congressional budget office is telling us our future is going to look like. this is the feature that the president's plan of debt and decline brings us to. this is what the senate gets you by doing nothing, by not passing a budget for three years in a row. this is a feature that gives our children a diminished country. this is a future that ruin our economy. this is a future that we don't want to see happening. if we have a difference of opinion in the direction he and the senate leaders have taken the country, which we do, we are morally bound to offer a choice, and we have a legal obligation in our budget laws to produce a budget. what our budget does is it shows precisely how we will get this budget under control and get our debt levels under control. at the end of the day, it is all about growth.
it is about growing opportunities, growing the economy, lifting the debt, restoring economic freedom, reforming the tax code so that we can help have our economy reached its full potential. it is about turning our system that has become dependent culture into an upward mobile society, getting people back on a life of self-sufficiency. if our economy grows even faster than what we have proposed here, the results are that much better. before i close, i would like to thank my colleagues in the budget committee for the hard work in putting this budget together. i want to thank senator jeff sessions for his leadership in the senate. i am hoping to call him chairman next year. and at its core, i want to say this -- this plan action is about putting an end to end the promises for bankrupt government and restoring the promise of america, he ensuring that our children have more opportunities than we do. that is the american idea, to
leave your children better off. we know that for the first time in the history of this country, that legacy will be severed unless we act. if we step in and fix this problem now, we can avoid a very painful debt crisis tomorrow. we are here to offer americans the chance to choose which future they want for themselves, the president's path of debt and declining, or the path we are proposing, a path to renewed prosperity for americans. with that, let me turn it over to senator sessions. >> the house republicans were elected to a new majority, and they have courageously, intelligently, and responsibly laid out a new plan for america's future. they have met their duty that they were sent here to fulfill. we have never needed a budget more than we need it today. we are facing the systemic threat to america's financial
health. the budget they offered will alter that course from unsustainable to sustainable. it will take us from declined to prosperity. it is the right thing for america. the senate democrats have abandoned their obligations and have refused to offer a budget for three straight years now. they did not offer to write one last year, and they are going to miss the april 1 deadline this year, and they are not going to produce one at this year. senator harry reid, the democratic leader, said it would be foolish to have a budget. the senate democratic majority has forfeited their climb to leadership for america. if the voters give the republicans in the senate the honor of having the majority and the leadership, we will work with the house to pass a congressional budget. it will be an honest budget, it will change it did get course of
america. thank you, paul, at all of you for the great work and leadership you have provided. >> questions? >> chairman ryan, the democrats are in full force. the chairman of the democratic caucus said this is deja vu all over again. most people are not going to sit down and read this -- >> go to www.budget.gov and you can download a this yourself. [laughter] >> most people see a 30-second ad, a quick sound bite, and state they want to cut medicare. how can you win that argument? >> if we simply operate based on political fear, nothing is ever going to get done. if we allow entitlement politics, fear your adversaries will turn reform into a
political weapon against you, america will have the debt crisis. i've got news -- medicare under the president's law is going bankrupt. medicare and the president's laws, turning the medicare to a board of unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats, putting it price controls on medicare which will lead to deny care for current seniors, medicare under the current president's laws is half a trillion dollars from medicare to spend on his health-care proposal. we are saying to get rid of the rationing board and preserve the system. they have already retired or are about to retire and have organized their lives around this program, and we are saying that in order to save the system, have the choices of guaranteed options, including the traditional fee-for-service program, just like we do as members of congress for our health care choices.
saving medicare it this way, which has a rich tradition of bipartisan support, it is the most humane, the most common sense, and bipartisan net way to save this vital program. let me turn it over to dr. price, an expert on this and a member of the ways in committee. >> the american people are smarter than the democrats give them credit for. they understand that the current program is broken. they understand that what the president has done with his party is removed $500 billion from the current medicare program. they understand that with the president's plan is through the current law is to put in place the advisory board, 16 unelected bureaucrats who have the power, without appeal, to deny payment for services for seniors. the american people understand that. they know that what we've been working on is saving and preserving the medicare system. the work that was done last year and this year will allow seniors
the opportunity to stay on the current medicare program if that is what they desire or voluntarily move to a different program through a premium support process. the american people are brighter than the democrats give them credit for. >> you describe this, mr. chairman -- we heard it in the phrase "death panel." it will this be just another shot at political rhetoric? clear., let's be the independent payment advisory board is a board that is, in current law, be 15 individuals appointed by the president who, without appeal, be able to deny payment for services that doctors would provide to seniors. as a physician, i can tell you that when you talk to the doctors of this land and say you will not get paid for something, theyou able to do wiit, answer is now. it does not matter what you call
it, the fact of the matter is the board is in place that would deny payment for services to seniors. seniors know that is wrong. that is why we are working to improve and strengthen the program. >> one thing we know that americans are tired of this government shutdowns -- is government shutdowns. what you say -- what you say it to those who say that you're taking another a government shutdown? >> get your second, discretionary spending goes down. we have to say we are providing fro -- preventing the sequester from hitting next year. we should not go down the path that from our preparations in october, and then the sequester hits in, we need to prepare for that -- we are showing how to prepare for that. we are having six committees go
out and come up with spending cuts to show how we would replace the sequester but we think i.t. is being honest with people, being forthright about how we should deal with what is coming instead of just ignoring the law and attending as if nothing is going to happen in january. >> do you think -- >> sorry. [laughter] >> do you think this that budget could have a detrimental effect on the gop nominee in november? >> no, i don't read all the candidates have campaigned on -- now, i don't. all the candidates have campaigned on these various ideas. the president is giving us a path of the debt and a decline. he gave us a budget with a $4 trillion deficit, the fourth time of kicking the can and ignoring the drivers of our debt. the president is making it
worse. he is putting more taxes on the back of taxpayers, on the back of hardworking americans, the back of the small businesses, and he is increasing spending. we all the country an alternative path if we don't like the path of the president is taking us on. whoever our nominee is going to be owes the country the choice of two futures, at each of the people running for president have given ideas for reforms that perfectly jibe -- >> do you believe they will accept your budget? >> absolutely. >> what is the cost of the tax proposal over the next decade, and how you pay for them without adding to the deficit? >> we are proposing tax reform. we believe there is a bipartisan consensus on tax reform. the only problem is that the president and the senate democrats are not part of it. the president proposed a budget
that adds more loopholes to the tax code. it leads to more cronyism and less economic growth. replace the tax code we have, which is extremely complex, the result of both political parties loading up the tax code with special-interest loopholes. get rid of the loopholes and lower rates for everybody. eight out of 10 businesses in america -- they are not corporations, they are small businesses. they file taxes as individuals. the president is saying in january he wants their top effective tax rate to go to 44.8% rate when i come from, overseas, meaning lake superior -- [laughter] canadians lower tax rate on their businesses to 18%. how can we compete when we are taxing them at 45% and the canadians are at 15?
ratesre everybody's tax so that we get faster economic -- lower everybody's tax rates so that we can get faster economic growth. what the ways and means committee wants to do -- chairman camp will tell you that lets it do this out in front, in plain sight, and not in a back room. >> proposing revenue laws -- >> we propose the current policy baseline at which is what the cbo uses. we do not assume a massive tax increase, we do not assume the $4 trillion tax increase that current law has in store or the $2 trillion tax increase that president obama as in his budget. we propose not to raise taxes. we propose to give a tax revenues the same amount from americans, not by picking winners and losers in washington, but might treating everybody fairly so that we can the art taxes.
-- lower taxes. >> don't you have to get rid of pretty much everything -- mortgage deductions, a health care? >> when you look at the $1.80 trillion, you have to remember that relative to the president's budget, they tried to reclassify a lot of the spending into mandatory savings. it makes the other mentors look bigger and the discretionary no. look at smaller, because the president tries to reclassify some spending from discretionary into mandatory. that is an issue where the administration went the wrong way and are trying to sneak many more things into the autopilot side of government spending. as far as tax rates are concerned, it is up to ways and means it to decide what stays, what goes -- >> [unintelligible] >> no, i had been writing a tax reform bills for a long time did the fiscal commission says to
go to 23%. we're talking about a rate that is a little higher than that. >> club for growth and other conservative groups have said they will demand balance in 10 years. you have not done that. what is your response to them? could it be done? >> yes, it could be done, under the right economic growth scenarios. if you put this budget through, what we think are much more reasonable projections of the economy, that is accomplished. we at the budget committee must use the cbo baseline. here's the problem -- they're baseline assumes of $4 to in tax increase starts in january to -- their their baseline assumes a $4 trillion tax increase starts in january. we have the use this baseline that assumes it very bad policies, which we don't have in our budget, but is baked in the yardstick that we use for our
budget, which takes a longer time to balance. if you apply what we think are much more reasonable, academically backed up and reinforced economic growth projections, and then yes, absolutely you can balance in that timeframe. >> you kind of glossed over the other mandatory -- the transportation -- i mean, these are unlike anything he proposed last year. are you going after food stamps -- >> let me go into detail. we've proposed a welfare reform, round two, which is to take those principles of welfare reform that were extremely successful in getting people off of llives of dependency and back on their feet. sending housing assistance back to the states so that they can customize these benefits. the kinds of policies that made welfare reform so successful. we proposed agriculture reform,
or we don't have as much spending on the agriculture and commodities side of the bill. we also propose a federal employee reform, where we think that federal workers should have to beg half of their -- have to pay half of their pension themselves instead of having the private sector taxpayers paid for it. there is about hundred pages of details, welfare reform, agriculture reform, i could go down the list. >> you mentioned crop insurance. it has been cut $12 billion already. most of these folks working on this right now to say that crop insurance is key to reducing spending on other programs in agriculture. why go after crop insurance --
>> we are working with the agriculture committee to decide how to do this. they will save $33 billion. all those payments -- the chairman will have to come up with. do i think you can get more from out of crop insurance subsidies --? more reform from crop insurance subsidies? yes, i do. that is up to the agriculture committee to decide how to do that. >> how much does your plan save medicare? >> our plan saves medicare from bankruptcy over the long term. in the 10-year window, the benefits do not change for people, as i mentioned, 55 and above. but we do propose liability reform, which saves medicare by repealing obamacare, you say the spending in medicare. we also agree with the president in his budget on the need to means test throughout the medicare program. i cannot remember off the top of
my head what the statements are. >> to follow up on luke's question, do you see the issues in the budget as the central issue in the campaign, and do you expect the republican nominee for president to be campaigning on this budget? >> i expect the republican nominee, whoever this person is, to offer the country the legitimate choice they desert. the president and his party an re ignoring this problem. if we have a debt crisis, the people who get her first and worst are the poor and elderly. we will cut indiscriminately like they are in greece. we have an obligation to see how we prevent this debt crisis, this most predictable crisis, from coming. so yes, i expect our nominee, whoever he has got to talk about how he proposes to fix this problem. in the house, we have the
majority. we are putting out our path to prosperity. fromis an alternative path the one the president has us on. it ignites the american idea, it reclines the opportunity society, with a safety net, which we believe must exist for people who cannot help themselves and people who are down on their luck to get back on their feet. but we do not want to turn it into a hammock that allows people to live lives of complacency. yes, we are sharpening the contrast between the path we are proposing and the path of debt and decline that the president has placed us on. yes, we do believe that our nominee, whoever the person is going to be, is going to be perfectly consistent with this. i have spoken to all of these guys, and they believe we are heading in the right direction. >> what about how congress can change social security? >> what we have proposed in here is a trigger, the one that the
president has turned off on medicare, that says that when we conclude that medicare -- excuse me, social security is insolvent, it requires action by both congress and the administration. the thing we're talking about is if we do nothing, a 23% across- the-board cut the benefits occurs. we believe that congress needs to act, and we have proposed what we call the forcing mechanism, a trigger, that requires congress to do that. the thing that is unique about social security is when bob byrd and as others were the social security budget act, at they took reconciliation out of consideration. that is why we have a trigger to force all parties to come together at half a plan to save up social security. this an example that
triggers don't often work? >> they work if you can pass them. none of them work if the senate decides not to pass the budget again. you have ever seen just a bill -- "just a bill on capitol hill," "schoolhouse rock"? this process stops and ends if the senate doesn't do it nothing could they say they will not do a budget in 2012 at a time when we have the most predictable debt crisis on the horizon. we believe that is wrong, we are proposing solutions, and we are showing the country how we would get out of the ledebt path we are on. you get the last question. >> is this a reference to hr. 5?
>> the ipad bill? yes. all right, thank you, everybody. appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> budget committee chairman to paul ryan and others. that will be available on c- span.org. we are also linking to the budget itself, what republicans are calling "the path to prosperity." you can find that on c-span.org. at the white house reaction, that "it would show were the wealthiest americans with an average tax cut of about least $150,000 of preserving taxpayer give voice to oil companies and bricks for wall street hedge
fund managers." we will take you back up live to the u.s. house, dealing with a couple of bills dealing with federal land and property. live coverage at noon easter did until then, "washington journal" viewers and their thoughts on the budget. you are up first. go-ahead. caller: good morning. it seems a lot of your commenters on twitter are hitting my points, at least the republicans are doing something optimistic to try to reduce the deficit instead of destroying the economy through the 10's in hrough keynesian c model. paul ryan is one of the best folks up there. i would support anything that he puts forward when it comes to
fiscal sanity. one of the biggest things under the radar that we're not to watching, many people are not paying much attention to what happened friday with the national defense resource preparedness executive order by president obama. this is a take on what has been out in the past, but also it is enhanced. when people look at it, they can go to the net and look at this order, but also corporate stafford act, on page 81 of the stafford act, i think, it has a lot of sweeping powers and there are a lot of people talking on the net that they think this is somewhat of a setup of martial law takeover if the elections don't go the way the democrats want because of supposedly disenfranchisement of people at the ballot box. i think a lot of people want to check into this and ask
themselves why now? host: one of the other things that highlights as far as the proposal from mr. ryan is that of the alternative minimum tax. currently there are two rates. that's 28% and 26%. the alternative minimum tax if it's affecting growing numbers of middle-class households -- the proposal that's in the budget is to eliminate it altogether. there's a message from one of our viewers -- columbus, ohio, scott, good morning. caller: i'm watching you guys and seeing how the house gop released their budget. some of those things are good and long term, but in the short term we have that we are
reaching a trillion dollars on the trade deficit. i was looking at a pennsylvania congressman, his plan for the dead tree america act calls to put a 1% fee on all consumption taxes, which could generate if around $3.50 trillion in revenue and for us. why not constitute something like that? host: as far as the budget, it should deal with more trade matters, is that your opinion? caller: keynesian economics, put the reality is the trade deficit is really our problem. everybody, republicans and democrats, they focus on jobs and that kind of thing, but the deficit is what is killing us. the jobs, like congressman ron paul talks about, we will probably have more economic growth and job growth. host: paris, illinois, good morning to james.
caller: yes, it always seems like republicans want to balance the budget on the middle class' back. if you look at, what is it, three times an increase in profits right now for the corporations and so forth and we don't want to put higher taxes on them when the rest of us are staying the same in the middle class. i don't understand this and i don't understand why people in the middle class cannot see this. if you look at apple, where do they make most of their goods? china. this is getting kind of old. seems like everything goes overseas and nothing comes on. -- home. the republican support this because they are backed by large corporations like the coen brothers. -- koch brothers. they are trying to do things for large corporations.
host: it would eliminate the taxes on american corporations earnings from overseas operations. caller: i would like to see overseas operations somehow putting a tax on that. because it seems like that is where a lot of loopholes and a lot of our tax dollars are lost through overseas operations. host: marx, mississippi, you are on. caller: i think the paul ryan budget is going to tax the poor and the middle class. it is not going to help the country. 'the -- the republicans' main objective was to defeat barack obama and keep the rich from paying more. i think anyone that votes for
republican votes against their own interest, especially if you are middle and lower income people. host: that was minda in mississippi. planning to release the 2013 budget today from the house gop. we would like to hear your thoughts on the phone lines. dayton, ohio, tom, hello. caller: good morning. the guy mentioned apple. anybody that looks at the apple corporation and the budget we have going, how can we give them more tax breaks when the guy for apple makes $165,000 an hour? he is paying its employees $2 an
hour. we have legalized slave labor for our corporations. this is the reason we have a budget deficit. anybody that tells me give rich people more money -- this man is paying them $2 an hour. he install suicide necks so the people would not jump off the roof. host: should the house issued this in the address? caller: if they worked over here, maybe steve jobs would be worth $6 million instead 10 million -- instead of $6 billion. guhost: there's a question on twitter from ron -- now our next call in south dakota, bonnie.
caller: good morning. i don't believe that the gop has the american people's well-being in mind. they hijacked the conversation when they began to speak about debt constantly instead of looking into the recovery for the american people, such as president obama has put in place with the stimulus plan. as we were just starting to recover, they hijacked the conversation and brought it true debt.o i don't believe they will have a successful conversation going forward. it will probably finance the wealthy and not provide real jobs for americans. host: is that part of the conversation? caller: it is part of it, but it should not be the main focus for america. right now we need to get our country back on its feet. host: part of what mr. ryan says this morning is that we reject
calls to raise taxes, but revenue remains steady under our budget -- when nikki haley clinton township, michigan, dorothy, hello. caller: good morning. i am registered i republican, but i'm switching independent. phil ron paul is trying to make a difference. if they don't do something, the money is going to run out. all the entitlements and benefits people have put their money into, it's not going to be there. we are going bankrupt. he is trying to roll it back and restructure it to save it, not to get rid of it. the other comment is people are getting their news other than
abc, msnbc,, nbc, they're not getting the news. there's so much out there they they need to know about the impeachment bill of and about the nda or whatever it is called. so much is happening and people need to get informed. host: what do you think about the proposals as they stand, as far as the first part of your statement? the house budget that we are talking about? caller: it has not even come out yet, correct? host: there was an element that came out this morning as it relates to corporate tax rates and such. caller: i did not hear the first portion. i did hear that, just like when they brought out a budget last time, they portrayed him as trying to appeal granny and throw her off the cliff. my goodness, the democrats never even brought up a budget.
host: next call is in ohio, maryln. caller: i am repeating what was in the miami herald. $45,000 was found in medicare fraud. they took it away from -- they gave it back to medicare/medicaid. the prosecuting attorneys turned around and gave the license back to medicare people that were taking -- i don't know who would steal it, but anyway, i don't know. i earned my medicare all through the years. i don't want it being taken away. host: here's what mr. ryan says.
he says "budget medicare forms make no changes for those that are in or near retirement -- what do you make of those proposals? are you there? caller: yes, i feel that we paid into it. that's all i can say. it should not be changed. they still owe me money. why are they taking my money away from me? host: philadelphia, pennsylvania, good morning, bob. caller: i have to comment on the last guy complaining about a ceo making 100 something thousand dollars an hour. there was a sports guy that was let go last week and then signed for five years, $100 million. wake up, liberals.
they make more than all the ceo's. you could ceo's. host: what about the budget proposal we are talking about? caller: at least they are trying. harry reid in the senate is doing nothing. do something. republicans are trying, so why are you sitting on your laurels doing nothing? why don't the democrats complain about that? at least we are trying. democrats are doing. doing host: the new york times talks about fund-raising numbers released. it says president obama raised 45 been dollars in february --
again, if you want to see this, it's illinois primary day. you can see that coverage tonight's starting around 7:00. the best thing to go. our campaign 2012 website at c- span.org with a complete listing of what's coming up as far as the candidates are concerned and information you need including recent events. it's all there on our web page at c-span.org.
the house gop budget for 2013 said to be released today. some indication of what's going on in the pages of the op-ed pages of the wall street journal this morning. virginia beach, virginia, good morning. caller: hello, thanks for c- span. i wonder if the grand old party has turned into the greedy old patriarchs and if this budget will reflect what they have been doing lately and campaigning for lately. it seems that we need to address the fact that workers are not getting paid living wages. just having a job at a non- living wage will not answer the problem of the greediness of the top executives. and we need to address that, to spread the wages so there's enough going into social
security and to have it be solvent in the future. we would not need to tax executives so highly if they pay people in the first place. host: massachusetts, hello to stan. go ahead. caller: [unintelligible] 51% of all households don't pay any state or federal tax. the point is i don't like what they do with the money. host: how does it relate to the release of today's budget? caller: i saw one thing on the screen, the alternative minimum tax is still in place. inthey don't get a fair tax there and replace the irs, which can be mandated any more. host: the you fall under the alternative minimum tax? caller: i was in court in 1990
and i lost. i did it as an experience. host: so that's on the table. there is the reduction of the corporate tax rate and there's also reduction of tax rates overall for personal income, too. caller: i did not study all the parts. host: north carolina, charles, eloped. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i was calling about the paul ryan plan. i don't think it's going to work, because i think it's for the upper-class people. this is unnecessary for people to have to go through these types of things. i look at the money they spent on campaigns. they could spend less on the budget. they spend all this money just to get someone in office.
republicans and democrats -- and i'm a democrats-- we pay this kind of money for them to tell lies just to get in there and just to do things for other people. not for us. ork hard. host: what about the proposal is not for you? caller: the upper-class is not -- they are tax free in. they are not paying any taxes into it. just like we have. if they can have tax breaks like that and said on the money and not put it back in there to help the budget, i feel that we probably would come out even. everybody could have something. as much as the rich people have, i don't have anything against rich people, but if you make money in this country, if you want to put it back in this country. why do the things that they do
to confuse things? it does not make sense. host: when it comes down through tax rates, the proposal would reduce the two we did would reduce the current tax rates to two, 10% and 25%. if the top rate for corporations would come down 25% from 35%. it would nearly eliminate american corp. earnings from overseas operations. when it comes to the alternative minimum tax, it would eliminate that. there are two rates currently, 28% and 26%. the amt is affecting a growing number of middle-class households. maverick from twitter says -- turning to the campaign, the daily telegraph out of london
has the story -- north conway, new hampshire, jan. caller: this morning. i have an interesting idea. i thought maybe we should stop buying apple products for a while. the whole part of this is to bring jobs back to the united states. host: we're getting a little interference on the call. we will go on to new hampshire with jan. are you there? one more time.
omaha, nebraska, bill, good morning. caller: hello. about the tax thing, i think everybody should pay taxes including farmers. i don't know why they get away with paying no taxes. host: when you say everybody pays taxes, who should pay what? caller: anybody that makes an income should pay taxes. there should not be anyone out there that is not paying taxes. everybody has to help with this situation. you cannot have a few out there -- 51% don't pay taxes, i understand. has this --as this , this has-
in florida, william, hello. caller: good morning. in looking at this political situation with the gop and their budget, every time they put up a budget is like a bridge to nowhere. obama goes to use anything but put in their budget if it's good for the public and the people of the united states, he uses it. and the republicans voted against it. if they cannot continue to have it both ways. they said there and play games with people's lives. they have to wake up and remember this is the united states. we have poverty, we have real party, we have white property and black poverty and property all over this nation. they are sitting there playing games. host: what needs to be done to correct it? caller: they need to sit down
and analyze this. if you look on the streets now, you have people walking around that should have health care. but they are sitting around panhandling. and you have children that are hungry and they are worrying about the president giving them food stamps. they take this as a game. it's not a game. it is our lives. as long as they keep playing political games with our lives, the scale from the richest to the court asked, we're not mad about people who make money, we just cannot want money to sustain our own families. host: financial times has a story taking a look at oil, particularly when it comes to oil coming to the u.s. from saudi arabia. the headline --
>> all of today's "washington journal" is available on our video library at c-span.org. house is coming in to talk about several bills. the ryan budget has been released. we have posted that on our side as well, and you can watch the news conference of paul ryan and kent conrad at c-span.org. live to the house floor on c- span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend andrew walton, capitol hill presbyterian church, washington, d.c. reverend walton. the chaplain: let us pray.
on the day when leaders of irish and american nations meet and celebrate common heritage and mutual drains, may our spirits be united in the one spirit. may this day bring the memory of shared anguish and struggle to stir appreciation for times when comfort and peace are our companions. may this day awaken within us wonder and imagination that inspire us beyond the confines of routine and ritual. may the contemptations -- contemplations, conversations, and decisions of the day be undergirded by wise thoughts, kind words, and humane actions. may we find god-given goodness within ourselves and within
those whom we encounter that we may defend and nurture the worth and dignity of every human being. may we find success on our journey. may the road rise with us. may the wind be always at our back. may the sun shine warm upon our face, the rains fall soft upon our fields, and until we meet again, may god hold us in the hollow of god's hand. may men. -- amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will
be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, gug our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. search under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee, the whole number of the house is now 432. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized.
mr. poe: mr. speaker, as the bagpipes played in the background, the black cloth of sacrifice was draped over the badges of houston first responders yesterday. senior captain thomas "bill" dillon of the houston fire department was rushing into a house fire on march 14 when he apparently died of a heart attack. captain dillon was 49 years of age and 23 years with the houston fire department. he had three children. with somber respect, hundreds of texas firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and citizens attended his funeral. mr. speaker, 300 firefighters from other towns in texas volunteered their time to fill in at houston fire department stations so houston firefighters could attend the funeral. firefighters are a family of dedicated, loyal public servants. captain dillon and other firefighters spend their lives rescuing people they do not know and protecting property
they have never seen from fire. most of us flee danger. firefighters rush to the smell of smoke and the heat of danger. bill's crew at station 69 spoke yesterday about him saying he was a devout christian, had a contagious happy mood, loved to fish, and liked country music. captain dillon and his fell firefighters -- fellow firefighters are a rare breed, american breed. we thank them one and all. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise. >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the -- ms. hahn cloon thank you, mr. speaker. march is also women's history month so i'd like to talk about how this act affects women's health. and i believe that instead of just imposing government
mandates on health care for women, i believe the affordable care act empowers women and their families. because the affordable care act bans insurance companies from requiring women to obtain authorization before getting ob/gyn care, and affordable care act keeps insurance companies from denying coverage for conditions such as breast or cervical cancer, pregnancy, having had a c-section, or being a victim of domestic violence. and it ends the practice of gender rating so women will no longer be charged higher rates for simply being a woman. and the affordable care act does all this while preserving americans the right to choose their own doctor and the health coverage that they want. women's health, americans' health is better because of the affordable health care act. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise. >> mr. speaker, i ask to
address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, since this administration took office, the price of gasoline has more than doubled. in january of 2009, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.79. today that same gallon of gasoline will set you back $3.84. yet this administration continues to let the election year politics dictate policy. since 2010 i have led the charge in fighting president obama's assault on offshore drilling. the moratorium, a knee-jerk reaction to washington liberals harmed many local oil and gas producers on the gulf coast. according to a recent study conducted by the louisiana state university, the moratorium resulted in the loss of 8,000 gulf state jobs and $487 million in lost wages, and to make matters worse, the administration continues to push higher taxes on american independent energy producers leading to higher cost and higher unemployment rates. the past three years were
marred with poor decisions relating to energy production with consequences falling directly on south louisiana families. now is the time to promote sensible energy policies that put americans back to work while fully utilizing the resources we have right here at home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the national women's law center recently reported that 90% of the best-selling health plans charge women more than men for the same coverage. in addition, insurance have classified millions of women have having pre-existing conditions because of a previous caesarean section or having been pregnant. even before being a victim -- even more being a victim of domestic violence.
for decades women have unfairly been charged excessive costs for their health care. well, that changes now. because of the affordable care act, the discriminatory practice known as gender rating, or charging women more than men for care, will be prohibited starting in 2014. and women in private plans can obtain free lifesaving procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. the affordable care act bans insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on care so americans will not go bankrupt simply because they are trying to be healthy. and in 2014 because of health care reform women cannot be denied access because of a pre-existing condition. there is no better time than today to stand up earn demand quality. quality accessible health care for women. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, over the past month the price of gas per gallon has increased by 31 cents. with an average cost of $3.83 per gallon. this weekend the president said that his administration could not do much to provide relief at the pump, but actually earlier he promised to increase energy costs which destroys jobs. the president also claims to support an all-of-the-above energy plan, however, due to his decision to reject the keystone pipeline, it is clear these claims are not made for felt. the rising energy costs is to delay regulations that will mandate more will be stripped from gasoline. the delay of this policy will not lower pricings but simply keep them from increasing due to more government regulation. i urge the president to work with house republicans and begin enacting policies which will help americans feel relief at the pump. in conclusion, god bless our
troops, and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: this week the national women's law center issued a report and onlie sur fay of inbrokers across the country -- mr. courtney: every woman who tries to buy a policy knows that 90% of the best-selling insurance plans charge women more than men simply because of the fact they are women. this is a fact which is not denied by any of the major insurers, blue cross, wellpoints, humana were all interviewed in a story in the "new york times" a few days ago. this is not a debating point. this is a fact. in addition to higher costs, many insurance companies in some jurisdictions around this country deny women coverage entirely because of conditions which are characteristics of women, which is breast or
cervical cancer, pregnancy, having a c-section, or even being a victim of domestic violence. as i said earlier, the affordable care act will abolish all of these barbaric discriminatory practices starting in 2014. women had a lot of hooting and hollering this week about repealing obamacare, but those people who say that should look women in the eye in this country and tell them what are you going to do to end these discriminatory practices? the fact of the matter is they have no answer. it's time to stand up for this act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, as a physician you know very deep in the president's 2,000 page health care bill was the independent payment advisory board, the ipad, an un-elected, unaccountable 15-member rations board appointed by the president for the sole purpose of cutting medicare. mr. harris: who will the 15 members of the board be? the law actually forbids them
from being active health care providers. it only allows seven members of the board to even have a health care provider background. in short, a majority of the board will be composed of people who have no experience in actually caring for patients. patients across the country, especially those in rural areas like my district, are already struggling to find physicians who will accept new medicare patients. this will only make it worse. if medicare beneficiaries are lucky enough to find a physician who will see them, it will place a government rationing bureaucrat between them and their physicians. that government bureaucrat has no place in the physician-patient relationship in america. we need to repeal the ipad now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, the
steel plant in lackawanna, new york, was one the center of the economy, employing thousands of people. tragically these workers were unknowingly exposed to toxic uranium dust and high levels of radiation, leaving many suffering from cancer and other health problems. thanks to the efforts of the employees' families, congress established a program to compensate former bethlehem steel employees for their illnesses. however, this process is a difficult one to navigate. i am proud to have worked with the individual families and help countless of them to receive the compensation they are owed. mr. speaker, there is still more to be done. there are families who deserve to be compensated for their suffering and that's why i, along with new york senators chuck schumer and kirs continue gillibrand, are calling on the national institute of occupational safety in help to expanding the eligibility period. mr. speaker, western new yorkers have long been recognized as some of the most dedicated in this country.
i will not rest until those are compensated for their suffering. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise. mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank you. mr. speaker, you have heard on our side of the aisle this morning a number of members talk about saving medicare. and protecting our precious seniors. what we are wanting to save them from is the most egregious aspect of obamacare and that's called the ipab law. that 15-member cure contract agency that's going to actually come between a doctor and his or her patient and interfere with that sack crow sappingts dr.-patient relationship and make decisions to cut and slash
their medicare opportunity to see their doctor. this is not the way to fix medicare, mr. speaker. we know how to fix medicare. we will talk about that in our budget this year as we did last year, but we must strike down this egregious section of this 2,700-page bill and we will do that this week. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the jae is recognized. ms. castor the affordable care act is two years old this week. it outlaws discrimination in co-payments and premiums for the same coverage based on gender. see, women have been charged generally more for health insurance. more than 90% of the best-selling health plans still charge women more than women for the same coverage. the affordable care act ends that discrimination.
second, women can no longer be denied coverage for an h.m.o. or insurance company because they have a pre-existing condition, like breast cancer that's in remission, or they had a c-section when they delivered their child or even injuries from domestic violence. three, women no longer have to jump through the bureaucratic hoop of obtaining permission to see their ob-gyn. four, and because prevention works and saves money, women in new health insurance plans will automatically be covered for screenings, madam grams, birth control. finally, health insurance companies can no longer can sell your policy if you get sick. these are important protections for women across america, for mothers, daughters and for our families. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, because the president cannot stand by his
record of failed policies and broken promises, he's resorted to the politics of envy and division. is it fair to pay for his health care bill president obama cut doctor 500 billion from medicare thereby threatening seniors and their access to health care? mr. desjarlais: i know how important medicare is to our seniors. that's why i'm proud to join house republicans this week in introducing a bill to eliminate the new medicare rationing board created in obamacare. while president obama thinks 15 unelected washington bureaucrats should decide the value of medical services, my fellow physicians and i believe that power should remain between the nation's doctors and their patients. 15 unelected bureaucrats, that's one crowded exam room. let us pass this bill and get rid of this health care law that went did he ask for, we can't afford and we just plain
don't want. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise today to join my colleagues in speaking up on women's health. as we approach the anniversary of the passage of the affordable care act, i want to remine all of us about some of the challenges that women have faced before health reform was signed into law. mrs. davis: well, before health reform was signed into law, insurance companies could deny coverage to women due to so-called pre-existing conditions like cancer or even simply having pregnant. insurance companies could force women to pay more for their coverage simply because of their gender and now thanks to the affordable care act, women will be able to see their ob-gyn without referral. you've heard that repeatedly today because it's important. women will have access to
critical important services like birth control with no out-of-pocket costs and that ultimately saves health care expenses. already hundreds of men and women from all across san diego have shared with me how important affordable access to contraception is for them and for their families. they can't afford to have it stripped away by this congress. i urge my colleagues to build on these reforms to ensure that all women have equal access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa rise? mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, the two years since president obama signed the affordable health care into law, many americans have experienced firsthand its important benefits and economic security it provides.
medicare is now stronger for seniors and women can now get life-saving madam grams at no extra -- mamograms at no extra costs. children won't lose coverage because they have been born with pre-existing conditions like asthma. americans are seeing how health reform are saving lives and saving money. for example, 86 million americans have received free preventive health care and 180 million are now protected from some of the worst health insurance abuses. an additional 2.5 million young adults now have health insurance. 47 million americans now benefit from a stronger medicare program. now prescription drug discounts have saved 3.6 million medicare recipients an average of $600. mr. speaker, president obama's landmark health care reforms are already helping millions of americans save lives and live healthier lives. i commend president obama for making tough decisions that have given more health access
-- help america's access to affordable quality health care program. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. johnson: to address this august body for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: i don't want to blame my colleagues for being forgetful, nor do i want to say anyone is not caring. but i do want to remind the house before the health care law, insurance companies were free to discriminate against women and they did so with reckless abandon. women were charged 50% more than men for the same insurance coverage and pregnancy could be considered a pre-existing condition. reform ends this discrimination, but unfortunately many in congress and the campaign trail -- people on the campaign trail,
they have forgotten the past and they seem to be determined to repeal it. reform put women in control of their health and shame on those who put insurance companies back in charge. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to give a great expression of gratitude to the clooney family. mr. george clooney and his father, nick, were among the many who were arrested on friday, march 16, protesting over at the sudanese embassy. i am saluting them and grateful to them because, not only what they did that day, but what mr. clooney did when he went into sudan, at some considerable risk, i might add, to secure evidence of what was taking place there and what is taking place. and those who would like to see some of the evidence can go to
www.enoughproject.org. you can actually see the video. i believe what he has done and those others who were arrested, i think it merits having a flag flown over the capitol. we will fly a flag over the capitol in honor of those who participated in the protest movement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponeed questions will be taken -- on postponed questions will be taken later today. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the
rules and pass h.r. 665 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 665, a bill to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of federal real property. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, h.r. 665, the excess federal building and property disposal act of 2012, was favorably reported by voice vote on the committee on oversight and government reform in november of last year. and i'm proud to be one of the sponsors of this bill. there are 39 co-sponsors of this bill, and in particular, i want to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for his great passionate work on this. mr. connolly, ms. norton, there are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have passionately worked on this issue and i'm proud to report, mr. speaker, this is very report in its nature. i also want to thank our chairman, chairman issa, who was very instrumental in passing out of committee to the floor, as well as ranking member cummings, and certainly our majority leader, mr. cantor, for allowing and encouraging this bill to come to the floor. i appreciate the bipartisan nature. these are the types of things that we should be doing as a body, to make sure that we're improving the process and streamlining the disposal of real property that happens in this country. most are somewhat amazed to understand that our federal government has roughly 900,000 buildings and structures under its ownership. the g.a.o. in 2011 estimated that the federal government
holds 45,000 underutilized properties that cost nearly $1.7 billion annually in order to operate. again, these are underutilized. in fact, more recently, the o.m.b. comptroller testified before the senate subcommittee that the government controls 14,000 excess and 76,000 underutilized buildings and structures. that's going to happen when you consume and have so many federal buildings. we have to make sure we as a government are also streamlining and moving forward with the disposal of these properties when they become something that is not fromly used. the federal government -- is not frequently used. in 2003 and in 2011, the g.a.o. designated federal real property management as a high-risk area to the federal government. thus, i think as an independent group, going out looking and assessing the situation and coming to the conclusion that as we a federal government,
this is a high-risk area, costs well over $1 billion a year, starting to approach $2 billion, certainly it's in need of some restructuring. so the excess federal building and property disposal act would streamline the disposal of high-value properties while overhauling the existing process. it creates a pilot program that would have the goal of maximizing profit. 98% of the proceeds under the pilot would be directed to the united states treasury general fund and % would be authorized to be used by homeless assistance providers. that's been the history of this government and house in the past. it streamlines the existing streamlining process by creating new agency incentives and requiring greater transparency and accountability from the federal agencies. again, this bill is bipartisan. it will direct revenue to the united states treasury. it reduces operating and maintenance budgets. it is presented in a bipartisan way.
mr. speaker, i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, the nature and the approach that we're taking here i think is just good government. it is smarter, more streamline, more efficient and move the ball in the right direction. so at this time i'd like to reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quigley: i want to thank the chairman of the full committee, mr. issa, for his staunch support of this bill and i want to thank my good friend, mr. chaffetz, for working so closely with us to craft this bipartisan bill and working together get it to the floor today. finally, i want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings, for working with me on this important bill. there could not be a better time to move a measure like this one through the congress. we are facing an unsustainable budget deficit and must get our fiscal house in order. one of the best ways to achieve much-needed reductions in
spending is to create efficiencies and cut waste. this is exactly what this bipartisan measure accomplishes. the federal government is the largest property owner in the world with an inventory over 900,000 buildings and structures and 41 million acres of land. yet, we waste billions of tax dollars each year maintaining properties we no longer need. . they own 76,000 properties identified as underutilized. in fiscal year, 2009, these underutilized buildings cost us $1.7 billion to operate annually. the g.a.o. has continue continuously found many properties are no longer relevant to their agency's missions and that agencies could do a better job of identifying disposing of unneeded property. h.r. 665 as amended will finally give agencies the tools they need to quick quickly -- quickly and efficiently dispose
of unneeded federal properties resulting in huge savings to the government. first h.r. 665 creates a five-year pilot program to expedite the sale of unused high-valued property. the office of management and budget also with the g.a.o., general services administration, will work with agencies to dispose of 15 high value properties. this was the properties for disposal will be a rolling list, meaning as properties are sold, additional properties will be added to the list for disposal. 98% of the proceeds from the sale of these high value properties will go straight to the treasury for deficit reduction. while 2% will be setaside for a grant to find assistance programs. in addition to the five-year pilot h.r. 665 as amended modizing the existing property disposal process and removes barriers to disposal.
much needed technical expertise to dispose of unused and unneeded property. the bill also allows all agencies to use the proceeds generated from the sale of property as authorized by congress to cover the cost of disposal. currently property disposal costs can be hugely expensive. without the ability to use the freeze of the sale to cover the cost of disposal, agencies have little incentive to dispose of these properties. any funds not used to prepare and dispose of property will be paid to the treasury for debt reduction. h.r. 665 as amended will also provide unprecedented accountability to the federal government's property portfolio. the bill will require g.s.a. to report to congress annually in a number of -- number, value, and minute nance cost of all federal property. and this information will be made available to the public at no cost in an online data base.
finally, despite part -- this bipartisan bill disposal process without creating new bureaucracy and no cost to the federal government. h.r. 665 as amended passed unanimously through the oversight and government reform committee. i encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense bill designed to improve government efficiency and save the taxpayers billions. again i want to thank mr. chaffetz for his good work on this bipartisan effort on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. i just want to simply thank the gentleman from illinois. he's truly one that will stand on principle and work on both sides of the aisle. for that we are very grateful and appreciative. this is what we are supposed to be doing. working in a bipartisan way. h.r. 665 as amended is a good bill. it's good government. it's something we should do and i would arch all of my
colleagues -- i would urge all my colleagues to support it. i thank leadership for making this happen. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 665 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered, pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.
enforce the spending limites that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis. i want to emphasize that we do have a budget. it is the law of the land. it was passed last year. it is in place. those who say we do not have a budget have either failed to pay attention to what they voted on or they are deliberately trying to mislead the public. the budget control act was
passed by the house of representatives. it was passed by the united states senate on an overwhelming bipartisan vote. it was signed into law by the president. it is now the law of the land. and it established the key components of the budget for both 2012 and 2013. here is the language from the budget control act itself. it is very clear the budget control act is intended to serve as the budget for 2012 and 2013. it states, and i quote, for the purpose of enforcing the congressional budget act of 1974 through april 15, 2012, the allocations, aggregates and levels set in subsection b-1 shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2012. that same language is repeated for 2013. in many ways, the budget control act was even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. number one, it has the force of law. unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the president. as all of you know, a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. the budget control act is a law. number two, it set discretionary caps for 10 years instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. number three, it provided enforcement mechanisms, including two years of deeming resolutions which allow budget points of order to be enforced. and fourth, it created a reconciliation like supercommittee process to
address both entitlements and tax reform. and it backed that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester. so i think we can put to rest the claims that there is no budget in place or we haven't enacted a budget. a budget was enacted for last year and this or this year and next, i should say, in the budget control act of last year. last week we received c.b.o.'s updated budget estimates which allowed me to complete work on the budget deeming resolution for 2013. the filing of this deeming resolution was required under the budge control act. i filed a similar resolution for 2012 back in september. and the budget control act is crystal clear. the spending limits in the resolution should be set at the levels agreed to in the budget
control act. again, here is the language taken directly from the law. it states, not later than april 15, 2012, the chairman of the committee on the budget shall file for the committee on appropriations committee allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in this act. it doesn't say at a level below the limits set forth in this act. it says at a level consistent with the limits set forth in the act. and let's remember what these limits mean. under the budget control act, spending caps that are put in place in the law, discretionary spending is cut by $900 below the c.b.o. baseline over the next 10 years. and that is not including the
sequester cuts. that is just the result of the budget control act spending limits. now, our house republican friends now seem to be walking away from these levels, even though they agreed to them just seven months ago. let's look at what they themselves said just last summer. here's what the house budget committee chairman said on the house floor on august 1 of last year. and i quote, what the budget control act has done is it has brought our two parties together. so i'd just like to reflect for a moment that we have a bipartisan compromise here. that doesn't happen all that often around here so i think that's worth noting. that's a good thing, and what are we doing? we are actually cutting spending while we do this. that's cultural. that's significant. that's a big step in the right direction. we are getting 2/3 of the cuts we wanted in our budget, and as
far as i'm concerned 66% in the right direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong direction. our republican house colleagues were pleased to be getting 66% of what they want. on that basis, they made an agreement. they shook on it. and they passed it as law. now they are looking to walk away from their agreement. and it now seems our house republican colleagues are on their own because at least so far the senate republican leadershipes that agreed that we should keep to the spending limits that we agreed on just last year. here's what senate minority leader mcconnell said on the senate floor last month. and i quote, we have negotiated the top line for the discretionary spending for this coming fiscal year. we already have that number. there's no good reason for this
institution not to move forward with an appropriation process that avoids what we have done so frequently under both parties for years and years, either continuing resolutions or omnibus appropriations. the senate republican leader concluded, i hope we can join together and do the basic work of government this year and do it in a timely fashion. i hope our house republican colleagues are listening. now, it is very clear we have a budget for this year and for next. that budget is in law. and i am and pursuant to that law filing the deeming resolution in the senate today that provides the numbers that the appropriators need to proceed with their work for the year. b.c.a. also sets the revenue levels and the mandatory
spending levels. for the year. again, i hope our house republican friends are listening. we still must come together on a longer term plan to deal with the long-term debt threat. but the short-term budget is in place. it is the law. it was included in the budget control act that they agreed to last summer. it provided for about $900 billion in discretionary spending cuts over the 10 years of that agreement. so the senate is proceeding with its business. i will be filing the deeming resolution for 2013 today, and we will be moving forward with appropriation bills at the levels that everyone agreed to just last year. house republicans, i hope, would do the same. if they failed to do so they will once again threaten to
shut down the government and needlessly imperil the economic recovery. i'm happy to answer questions that people might have. >> what the republicans say, and i think their point might be well taken is, look, we have this master sequester that will hit discretionary programs. and what they're doing is cutting $19 billion instead of $78 billion under the sequester and they will also have a reconciliation process that would take care of some of the other cuts. you don't have any plan, as far as i can tell, that deal with the sequester, or if you do, what is it? >> well, first thing that has to be done, the first responsibility i have under the budget control act, which is the law, is file the deeming resolution that sets the budget for this next fiscal year.
i am doing that today. my legal counsel tells me that meets the requirement and the responsibility for the budget committee to file a budget for this year by april 1. a longer term plan, as i indicated, is what remains to be done. and that has to be done in some bipartisan way. and so i'm hopeful that as we go through this year we'll find a way to do that. i will go to markup. i will provide an outline of what makes since as a -- sense as a long-term plan but the april 1 deadline has now been met. yes. >> how do you deal with sequestration? lockheed martin c.e.o. talked about a lot of income tax that is happening -- their suppliers might go, you know, belly up in
the meantime. how do you deal with that and when do you propose dealing with the deficit issue, the larminger deficit issue? >> -- larger deficit issue? >> well, what is provided for in the budget control act, which everybody agreed to last year, sets the defense, nondefense firewall for this coming fiscal year. so that's been decided. the question is sequestration which takes effect at the end of this year. that is what has to be addressed in some longer term plan, and i will propose a longer term plan at some point in the future. we are talking to colleagues about that now. but the first requirement i have, the first responsibility was to meet the april 1 deadline set out in the budget control act law, and i do that today.
>> so when do you propose to get that done? >> that is why my own believe is, we are in a very unusual situation, and people are kind of trapped by what they know from the past. in the past we have dealt with budget resolutions. that's not what congress and the president did last year. instead, we passed a budget control act which set the budget for this year and next and provided -- gave me the responsibility to lay out these numbers for the appropriators before april 15. i've done that today. the appropriators can impforward with their work for this year. as i indicated in my statement, what still needs to be done is a longer term plan. but we're no longer tied to the april 1 deadline. that deadline has been met. by what we file here today. what we need is a longer term plan, and that is a matter of
judgment. when is it most likely that the two sides can come together? i've had many of my colleagues say it's most likely after the election. that might be. i really -- i don't know the answer to that. what i do know is we've met the requirements for a budget for this year. what is still needed is a longer term plan. and when i make a judgment that we are in best position to move forward on that we will go to markup. yeah. >> there was remarks made on the floor that the house republicans were going to trier to lower the number. has he said anything sense? >> not that i know of. >> is that the point that senator mcconnell will move with the number? >> i really don't know what the key element is here. what i do know is the budget control act is law. what i do know is i was given
the responsibility to file a budget by april 15, and i've done that. and the appropriators can now go to work. so they are not limited. they are not restricted. that's the whole reason we have in the underlying budget control act a requirement that i file by april 1 so that the appropriators can get started. the budget control act provided the budget for this year. for this coming fiscal year and for the current year that we're in. and i have now discharged that responsibility, the appropriators, i met with the chairman of the appropriations committee. his legal counsel has advised him that this is what is required under the law, and he has all the authority he needs to proceed with the appropriations process for this year.
and again, let me just emphasize. while we have now met the responsibility for a budget for not only this year, which was done last year in september, i did the deeming resolution then , what i am doing today discharges the responsibility for the coming fiscal year. what we still need to do is to agree on a longer term plan that deals with our deficits and debt. but that is no longer tied to april 1, according to our legal counsel. so, you know, we are going to have to make a collective judgment. when is it that you'll have the best chance of actually reaching an agreement? and many of my colleagues have said they don't believe that will happen until after the election. my own belief is we can't wait until then to be working on a plan, and so for months i have been working on a plan.
i have been working with a -- the group of eight to be working on a bipartisan plan. it is my hope that thue these joint efforts that we will -- through these joint efforts that we will sometime, and maybe we won't have to wait until after the election, that we be able to have a comprehensive plan that deals with our long-term challenges. thank you. we got a statement here that lays out what we are doing in the deeming resolution, the numbers that are assigned to each of the committees and lays out the savings. nearly $900 billion over 10 years. thank you. >> senator kent conrad from this morning ahead of paul ryan's release of the 2013 budget which would set a $1.028 trillion discretionary spending
limit. the briefing -- the two briefings happened back to back. you can see both of them and read the budget proposal and the white house reaction on our website at c-span.org. it's the illinois primary today with 54 delegates at stake in the race there. we will have coverage this evening with candidate speeches, the latest results and your latest comments by phone, facebook and twitter and it all gets under way at 7:00 eastern on the c-span networks. >> they knew america where freedom is made real for all without regard to -- economic conditions. [applause] i mean a new america which ever lastingly attacks the ancient
ideals that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> past candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders who see the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the prophets of the radical liberal left continue to offer only one solution to the problems that confront us. they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. [booing] >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> president obama on capitol hill today with the irish prime minister for the traditional st. patrick's day lunch. the house in recess until we think about 1:45 or so.
we will have live house coverage when they gavel in. until then part of this morning's "washington journal." host: >> i think consumers are surprised when they learn something new about the food supply. ground beef has always been made of low-quality ingredients. and this pink slime, it may seem very unappetizing but really there is nothing unsafe about it. it is a product. they are taking very minute pieces of beef that otherwise couldn't be used. they're separating it out. they're treating it to make sure it contains less e. coli and salmonella and then a small
percentage of it is added back in when they make ground beef patties. really it is the marriage of superproduction, superproduced food. and consumers are always a little surprised. they think that ground beef comes from the whole cuts of beef they might see at their supermarkets. but in fact it's really the mixture of meat that is coming from all over the world. host: we see aburger -- a burger side by side. would you find a difference? guest: you won't see a hamburger made of this product. it's really only being used as a mix in when they're producing ground beef. so, for example, i went to a plant down in texas. they were taking fat -- the fat that's stripped off american
cows. they were combining it with lean meat that was coming from australia. they were grinding that meat together with that fat and here they might be adding in a small percentage, maybe 15% might be added in this new product. and part of the reason they're adding it is because that product's been treated to be less likely to carry e. coli, 157 r, salmonella, some of the hazards that really cause some of the illness from ground beef. host: who is responsible for regulating the use of what type of meat is added and those type of things? guest: the u.s. department of agriculture is in charge of regulating meat and poultry in the u.s. it's a very important job, but it's actually only about 20% of the food supply. the food and drug administration regulates the
rest of the food, the food that doesn't contain meat. host: so when it comes to the oversight of use there they are responsible for it. do they have the manpower and means to make sure that the use of this product is following standards? guest: usda definitely had a role in approving the process that when -- at the time that this particular production method was approved, usda would have played a role. the big question is really about whether the products should have been labeled so consumers can see them. in fact, they're not labeled today, so people really can't distinguish between hamburger patties that have it and one that doesn't. but, again, the bottom line is hamburger production, long ago, less -- the way that consumers think it may be happening which is you take a steak and you is you take a steak and you grind it